Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Adamczewski on the Testimonium Taciteum confirming the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

Post by Giuseppe »

I think that the (even litterim) parallelisms detected by Adamczewski (see the first post of this thread), in addition to Josephus' status as the favourite of Vespasian (virtually making him the best "specialist" in Jewish matters), are too much specific to require a common source shared by both (Josephus and Tacitus) and not rather the Tacitus' direct dependance on Josephus.

Obviously this doesn't change the negative verdict on the TF.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1221
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tacitus Christus/Chrestus, Christianos/Chrestianos

Post by Ken Olson »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:13 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 1:13 pm ... but the latter appears to be a correction of Chrestianos which can still be seen faintly in the manuscript (MS plut 68.2).

Roger Pearse has a post about this from 2008, with a monochrome image of the word Christianos/Chrestianos (only):
There is one more thing. The manuscript is written in Beneventana. The Beneventan script has a specific ligature for the combination of the letters "ri". One can observe this in the words "christus" and "Tyberio" as opposed to the corrected word "chrestianos".

Image
Kunigunde,

I can see that the supposed first I in Christianos looks suspiciously like an E (like the one in tibErius) with the top and the stroke connecting it to the subsequent S erased, and also that it does not look like the other examples of I in RI combinations. But do you have an opinion on what's going on with the R that precedes it? Are there other examples in the manuscript of an R looking like that (extending below the line)? It looks to me as though the corrector not only scrubbed out part of the E but put and additional vertical stroke through the R. But I can't come up with a good reason for the corrector to have done that.

Best,

Ken

PS The only reason I could think of was that the vertical stroke through the R was supposed to be an I like the second I in Christianos, and that the corrector accidentally put the stroke over the R instead of the E. But that would require us to hypothesize an awfully, awfully clumsy corrector.
Last edited by Ken Olson on Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Tacitus Christus/Chrestus, Christianos/Chrestianos

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:45 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:13 pm Image
But do you have an opinion on what's going on with the R that precedes it? Are there other examples in the manuscript of an R looking like that (extending below the line)?
Hi Ken, it appears that it is a regular R when paired with an E. Here are two images of the words "crederetur" and "repressaque" from the same folio.
BeneventRE.jpg
BeneventRE.jpg (43.79 KiB) Viewed 448 times
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1221
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Tacitus Christus/Chrestus, Christianos/Chrestianos

Post by Ken Olson »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:29 am
Ken Olson wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:45 am But do you have an opinion on what's going on with the R that precedes it? Are there other examples in the manuscript of an R looking like that (extending below the line)?
Hi Ken, it appears that it is a regular R when paired with an E. Here are two images of the words "crederetur" and "repressaque" from the same folio.

BeneventRE.jpg
Sure does. Thanks!
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Tacitus Christus/Chrestus, Christianos/Chrestianos

Post by mlinssen »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:29 am
Ken Olson wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:45 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:13 pm Image
But do you have an opinion on what's going on with the R that precedes it? Are there other examples in the manuscript of an R looking like that (extending below the line)?
Hi Ken, it appears that it is a regular R when paired with an E. Here are two images of the words "crederetur" and "repressaque" from the same folio.

BeneventRE.jpg
Kunigunde... now that is doubly devastating.
Even triple perhaps, as it is clear that the correction was executed by someone unfamiliar with the script

It would seem that Ken's possible clumsy clumsy scribe had turned into a plausible clumsy one.
I don't know what has been written about the possible authenticity of this fragment, but half a page would have done!

Where do you get this info Kunigunde? It is absolutely top of the bill
Post Reply